http://social.biowar.../2068#13272883' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>@SubAstris: Were you intentionally trying to sound dense?
SubAstris wrote…
Your assumption here is that they chose the form of the kid because Shepard felt some emotional attachment , I'm saying the Catalyst chose it because it was non-threatening. All I am saying is that the fact that the Catalyst is used in the nightmares and he appears at the end aren't necessarily linked.
I wrote…
If they didn't extrapolate this and the Catalyst chose to use the Earthchild's image for a different reason, what then is the reason it specifically chose the Earthchild and not something else? And to what purpose exactly?
Again, “to appear nonthreatening” is not a goal or a purpose, it’s
always a means to another goal. For instance: “I will appear nonthreatening in order to disarm Shepard’s hostility towards reapers.” “I will appear nonthreatening in order to convince Shepard that I’m not their enemy.” “I will appear nonthreatening so that Shepard doesn’t suspect that I am leading them into a trap.”
Note that each of these lines can go either way, IT or literal. Note that they don’t actually contradict the scenario where the Catalyst isn’t an antagonist and is genuinely interested in providing the galaxy a brighter tomorrow. But if you consider additional information from the series that scenario becomes implausible.
SubAstris wrote…
BW need Shepard off the planet, they can't have him dying in the first quarter of an hour.
So apparently narrative consequence
does rule the plot. (i.e. the plot takes precedence over realism) Explain then from a literary standpoint how and why the Starchild's image as the Earthchild is just a coincidence and should be treated as such. *BZZT* If you even started to answer that question seriously you’re obviously missing a crucial point: There is a definite story arc within ME3 regarding the child and the dreams. This story arc is
obviously meant to be significant to the overall plot considering how it opens and closes the game. Unless the ‘coincidence’ is lampshaded as such, there
has to be a plot-significant link as far as the Catalyst taking the Earthchild’s appearance is concerned.
And “because Bioware needed a plot” is a
weak argument. Like, vapour has more structural integrity than that. Disregarding that Bioware could have written the scene differently, disregarding that the Normandy was never shown evading enemy notice when it was in visual range (without an explanation for the feat), your argument hinges on involving conditions outside the realm of the narrative. IT is about making ME3 internally self-consistent thematically and logically. We
could always accept “bad writing” for explanations but we
choose not to. If you want to reduce everything you can down to “bad writing” you’re in the wrong thread entirely.
SubAstris wrote…
We can't know for sure, the only evidence we can use is his words, and they seem to suggest that has in fact changed, and there is little evidence that he hasn't in fact changed.
Exactly. We only have
his word to go on. The word of an entity that openly associates itself with the planet raping cuttlefish. And thanks for, you know, not providing your evidence for your claims, or actually countering the arguments for the claim that the Catalyst hadn’t changed. Because…
-It maintains a fallacious argument about organic/synthetic conflicts.
-It maintains a fallacious argument about the reapers being a solution to the previous fallacious argument.
-It supports choices which are ideologically
identical to the aspirations of two major villains of the franchise.
This is not ‘minor evidence’. These are fundamentals of the character. What they and other dialogue with the Catalyst suggest is not that the Catalyst changed its purpose or motivations, just that “a new solution” was apparently required. “Solutions” which are all very suspect themselves.
SubAstris wrote…
As for the last point, I realise the Catalyst has done wrong, but it's odd that having done all that he would be frank about all considering he wants to portray himself as a "good guy" in your eyes.
No sh*t, Sherlock. Of course it’s odd. That’s why we’re suspicious. The Catalyst was the enemy. It cannot deny this because it was self-evident. Now he’s trying to be non-antagonistic towards Shepard by trying to justify the unjustifiable so the question becomes why?
I wrote…
The Catalyst is manipulating Shepard. The Catalyst was the enemy. "Innocent until proven guilty" does not apply here.
SubAstris wrote…
Why not? You have to come from somewhere when assessing the validity and truthfulness of someone's statement, why does that suddenly not apply here? Presumably you agree with the principle when it comes to real people, right?
“Innocent until proven guilty” is the correct principle when you’re trying to ascertain whether a subject is guilty or not,
when you don’t have incontrovertible evidence that they are guilty to begin with. The Catalyst openly associates itself with the reapers (“I embody the collective intelligence of all reapers.”). It openly accepts responsibility for the reapers’ actions and existence (“they are my solution”). It’s pleaded guilty already. The burden of proof is not now on
it to convince us that despite its past crimes it can be trusted. And it failed.
SubAstris wrote…
Of course his arguments don't hold up to scrutiny, if they did what would be the point fighting the Reapers? The fact is that circumstances have changed and now new paths are open.
And we don’t have any information to conclude for certain that those new paths are in our interests. And we have plenty of reason to believe that two of them, the ones the Catalyst supports, aren’t. And we have no way to conclude for certain that the choices we were presented is in fact the one we were actually making. And plenty of reason to believe that they weren’t.
The reapers have repeatedly demonstrated deception and subversion throughout the series. To conclude that the entity that claims to be their leader/creator/guiding force wouldn’t is, in a word, stupid.
SubAstris wrote…
Just because it is wrong doesn't necessarily imply it is lying but made a genuine mistake, albeit one that killed trillions of beings.
So according to you the Catalyst’s crimes are analogous to manslaughter and not murder. If the Catalyst wasn’t evil then it’s certainly criminally negligent. How does this make the Catalyst and its new solutions trustworthy? If it committed an error of analysis and error and judgment because of that (which, according to it, it did), and it maintains that same error of analysis (which it does), how can you conclude its new judgments are not also in error?
I can only conclude Sub that you
want the Catalyst to be trustworthy. You
want to believe that you weren’t deceived or used. You
want to think that what you saw was what you got. And you’re afraid you made a mistake so you try, desperately, to convince the people who say that you did that you didn’t. Except you consistently fail to manage to put forward a proper, well thought out argument for how what you believe could be true complete with justification and evidence, in a manner that would be thematically consistent with the story. Unfortunately, since you can’t justify your arguments, your opinion is lacking.
TLDR: Try again.